Force v. Brumbies - R3 2014

[Shiggins]

I'll have a other look

 

[Slim 293]

Penalties? Surly it was 20 to 6 at least?

Surly indeed.........

 

[Slim 293]

I'll have a other look

You go and do that....... I'm off to bed..........

 

[Moono75]

Wow....that was a clusterfuck......need to get my thoughts together.

 

[ChargerWA]

Haven't watched it yet. Maybe I shouldn't. My self imposed ban on calling for Foleys heads ends next week.

 

[Bairdy]

Haven't watched it yet. Maybe I shouldn't. My self imposed ban on calling for Foleys heads ends next week.

You only need to watch the first 20 minutes, and last 10.

 

[Nusadan]

Just hope Larkham gives his team hell and a hard week to follow in training for that 2nd half performance, they should have gotten four tries and me $$$$!!!!!

 

[Quick Hands]

Hate to disappoint Force supporters, I know that you are waiting for improvement but it ain't gonna come. Foley coached sides play slow tempo, low skill rugby based on bashing it up the middle, so that when they get a turnover and try to shift it quickly, their catch pass skills can't work at speed under pressure. We've been through it. The sad part is that the players are giving it everything, but that style of rugby is slow, boring and ultimately unsuccessful.

 

[humanbeast]

So after watching the reds piss poor performance, I wake up to see McCabe hurts his neck and Pocock hurts his knee again? What a shit weekend

 

[Brumby Runner]

Brumbies may have won but they will be dirty they didn't get the 4th try after scoring 3 in the opening 25 mins.

BJ, it looked to me that the game plan was changed at half time. After lemons, the Brumbies kicked on first phase on every occasion I can recall only to have the Force return play to where the kick was made. It was a return to the worst of last week's play against the Reds. If it wasn't a change by the coaches, then Nic probably needs to be benched as a lesson. Their play in the first half was very encouraging with the ball being run from their own half on many occasions. That was good to see, and it should be the play for the whole game.

I also got the impression that Matty To'omua might have been carrying an injury in the second half. Never ran the ball when they did retain possession, and his defence definitely dropped off. Any news on him?

 

[Brumby Runner]

They sheared it off. Truck n trailer

A few years ago it was a tactic, mostly by the Wallabies as I recall, for the defending team to deliberately drop off the maul to earn a penalty for either obstruction or truck and trailer. The laws, or their interpretation, was changed to allow the attacking team to continue the maul if the defensive side either dropped off or were splintered. That is what happened in this maul in my opinion. The original Brumbies' maul continued. It did not disintegrate and reform. Should have been a try for all money.

 

[swingpass]

A few years ago it was a tactic, mostly by the Wallabies as I recall, for the defending team to deliberately drop off the maul to earn a penalty for either obstruction or truck and trailer. The laws, or their interpretation, was changed to allow the attacking team to continue the maul if the defensive side either dropped off or were splintered. That is what happened in this maul in my opinion. The original Brumbies' maul continued. It did not disintegrate and reform. Should have been a try for all money.

have a look over on the rebels v cheetahs game thread. the cheetahs first try was exactly the same and was allowed.

 

[Slim 293]

It looked like a legitimate try to me.......

Bizarre decision.......

 

[I like to watch]

So after watching the reds piss poor performance, I wake up to see McCabe hurts his neck and Pocock hurts his knee again? What a shit weekend

Terrible news for Pat.
Is that 3 neck injuries in his last 3 games?
If so,maybe enough is enough.
It would be disappointing for him no doubt,but he has to look after his health.
Crossing my fingers for him,quality guy,on and off the field.

 

[Shiggins]

A few years ago it was a tactic, mostly by the Wallabies as I recall, for the defending team to deliberately drop off the maul to earn a penalty for either obstruction or truck and trailer. The laws, or their interpretation, was changed to allow the attacking team to continue the maul if the defensive side either dropped off or were splintered. That is what happened in this maul in my opinion. The original Brumbies' maul continued. It did not disintegrate and reform. Should have been a try for all money.

Then why don't all teams do it ? It would almost be impossible to stop.

 

[thierry dusautoir]

Shit team selections got the force in this position. If the force started with the team they had for the last ten minutes they would have done a lot better…..Rasolea needs to have some time on the pine to contemplate life

 

[Brumby Runner]

Then why don't all teams do it ? It would almost be impossible to stop.

As a properly constructed maul is under the present laws. The problem with mauls is that the attacking team are allowed (by the refs if not the law book) to have players join the maul in front of the ball carrier. That should be eliminated and there might be a better form of defence against its use.

In any case, it is the action of the defensive team that dictates whether the maul is contested or not.

 

[Shiggins]

As a properly constructed maul is under the present laws. The problem with mauls is that the attacking team are allowed (by the refs if not the law book) to have players join the maul in front of the ball carrier. That should be eliminated and there might be a better form of defence against its use.

In any case, it is the action of the defensive team that dictates whether the maul is contested or not.

Yes. Once the maul has started it can only stopped when the ref asks or has been sacked. So if the call was obstruction by the ref that was wrong. And I believe he did call obstruction because the maul sheared off and had no force players attached. Then Hodgson went to make the "tackle" and he called obstruction.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yes. Once the maul has started it can only stopped when the ref asks or has been sacked. So if the call was obstruction by the ref that was wrong. And I believe he did call obstruction because the maul sheared off and had no force players attached. Then Hodgson went to make the "tackle" and he called obstruction.

The correct call would have been to penalise Hodgeson (had the try not been scored) for tackling a player without the ball and attempting to bring the maul down.

 

[Shiggins]

The correct call would have been to penalise Hodgeson (had the try not been scored) for tackling a player without the ball and attempting to bring the maul down.

As I remember he did to tackle as much as join the maul legally again. I still think it's a TNT. Have I got that wrong? Explain if so